WASHINGTON -- Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous -- that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

> They claim that they "will not," but the reality is that > they "can not" scientifically rebut the paper.

No, it's "will not", because it should never have been published there in the first place. Publishing it was analagous to publishing a paper on "UFOs and Alien Influences on the Construction of the Pyramids" in Biblical Archaeology Review.

Steyn's paper was worked over in a number of places, as was the previous paper from which he cribbed most of the material. For a pretty thorough critique of why, in addition to being inappropriate in the Society's journal, it was not terribly good science, read on:

"No, it's "will not", because it should never have been published there in the first place. Publishing it was analagous to publishing a paper on "UFOs and Alien Influences on the Construction of the Pyramids" in Biblical Archaeology Review."

Incorrect. The paper was successfully peer-reviewed. Your argument is that it shouldn't have been published *after* a successful peer review.

In effect, what you are doing is attempting to rebut a peer-reviewed paper without sending your rebuttal through the peer-review process.

...And the reason that you are attempting to avoid peer review yourself is as I stated above, that you can not find scientific flaws with the paper itself.

243
posted on 02/16/2007 11:49:42 AM PST
by Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

"Steyn's paper was worked over in a number of places, as was the previous paper from which he cribbed most of the material. For a pretty thorough critique of why, in addition to being inappropriate in the Society's journal, it was not terribly good science, read on:"

How can people "read on" if censors such as yourself are preventing competing peer-reviewed documents from being published?!

...and why, if the paper in question not such "good science," is a peer-reviewed rebuttal paper unavailable? It should have been easy (if your side was "right"). It wasn't.

You've got to jump through hoops, kid. You've got to **pretend** that the peer-review process failed, that the editorial review failed, and that it would be somehow inappropriate to even **discuss** the paper in question (in order to explain why no peer-reviewed rebuttal is on file).

Face it, your side has lost the entire Evolutionary argument, and you are reduced to using your positions of power to stifle publication and scientific debate.

You've become censors. You've become dogmatic. You've become unscientific. You've even resorted to becoming oppressive.

244
posted on 02/16/2007 11:56:22 AM PST
by Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

"The comparison to publishing a "UFOs and the Pyramids" paper in BAR was apt. The subject matter was entirely inappropriate for that journal, which is why your hero Sternberg short circuited normal procedures to publish it. At the end of the day, Meyer proposed NOTHING that constitutes science with his paper."

Nonsense. The peer-reviewed paper in question shows, exhaustively, that random mutation/selection is inferior to biased mutation/selection for explaining the Cambian Explosion of life.

247
posted on 02/16/2007 2:52:09 PM PST
by Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

"The ID side **needs** to get this through its pointed little collective head: Until you get a testable, potentially falsifiable prediction out of your speculations, y'all might as well be drinking lemonade in the backyard. You're not doing science."

Presence of "bias" does not show intelligent design (dissipative structures, anyone?), so your "test" does not have the potential to falsify your "hypothesis". It is, therefore... drum roll please .... USELESS, like every other supposed "test" for "ID".

"Presence of "bias" does not show intelligent design (dissipative structures, anyone?), so your "test" does not have the potential to falsify your "hypothesis". It is, therefore... drum roll please .... USELESS, like every other supposed "test" for "ID"."

Flawed logic. Gong! You lose.

Bias is a prerequisite for ID. True, the presence of bias doesn't insure intelligence, but the *absence* of bias precludes it.

Thus, ID can be falsified with a test for bias that shows...none.

Ergo, ID is a testable, falsifiable, scientific theory.

Of course, this stands to reason, as ID already explains genetically altered pigs that are grown in the lab to produce human hormones.

Evolution didn't create those pigs.

251
posted on 02/16/2007 3:31:19 PM PST
by Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

"If that's the position you want to stake out, it is also falsified by the existence of "bias" where it is known there is no intelligent interposer, and again I say "Dissipative Structures". End of ID."

Intriguing. You've managed to grasp that ID is testable and falsifiable. That's quite a leap from your earlier flailing about.

There's hope for you yet.

253
posted on 02/16/2007 3:43:56 PM PST
by Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

"To keep it in play, you have to come up with something that is falsifiable but NOT obviously false. I won't hold my breath for an example."

No need to hold your breath waiting for an example, they're plentiful. For instance, simply muster the courage to honestly answer which theory, Evolution or ID, correctly explains the origin of these genetically altered pigs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11042380&dopt=Abstract

255
posted on 02/16/2007 8:03:07 PM PST
by Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

What scientific argument is there for the proposition that intelligence is not required to produce organized matter performing specific functions? The nature and extent of intelligent design is fertile ground for science to explore, information being the very currency of science.

Furthermore, science is always tethered to each observer's philosophy or premises, so it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest proponents of intelligent design theory are operating purely out of religious and philosophical motives while proponents of methodological naturalism are purely objective.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.